Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was well... let's say... delete. Maybe we can find something better in lieu of this one. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:STS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of space shuttle missions has a list of all space shuttle missions, so we don't need this template anymore.it was made many months ago. Not only that, it is outdated. See: Talk:List of space shuttle missions#Removal of Template:STS— Jer10 95 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, so long as every space shuttle mission listed on List of space shuttle missions has a link in the "See also" section to List of space shuttle missions. Gracenotes^T § 01:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redundancy is not necessarily bad and having a concise navigation template at the bottom might be nice. I say keep and apply to all the space shuttle mission articles. Unfortunately the links aren't in list format with some style="display: inline; list-style-image: none; padding: 0; margin: 0;", but that can be arranged later (and IMO, needs to be done on a lot of navigational templates). --Iamunknown 02:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is exactly the type of template that should be used. However, I agree that it should not be put on the List of space shuttle missions page. Todd661 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• This template is redundant to the likes of {{Space Shuttle Columbia}}, {{Manned ISS flight}}, {{Space Shuttle Endeavour}}, etc, which all appear to have better scope, though I am no judge in this field. –Pomte 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are already three ways to navigate this information. List of space shuttle missions, the Prev/Next items in the infobox, and the "per" Space Shuttle navboxes. These latter are better, because unlike what most people think, the space shuttles are not identical technically. (There is a reason columbia never visited MIR or ISS) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. but perhaps it's a good idea to add a wikilink to this list of space shuttle missions, to the shuttle specific navboxes. I think i'll go do that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose to redesign the templates like this: {{Space Shuttle Columbia}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can condense the template, but is it useful for navigation anywhere? Currently, it is not being used anywhere - is it a loss to keep it that way? –Pomte 17:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What i meant was, if we redesign the other templates like my idea, then there is absolutely no need for this STS template, because there is a link to the "list of" page in the various Space Shuttle boxes. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User weatherbug (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spam like and appears to be completely unused. — BigE1977 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Don't think it is necessarily spam (odd, the creator never even used it), but delete esp. since it is unused and quickly! before it infiltrates the Wikipedia servers with adaware!!! --Iamunknown 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy. Unless someone wants to use and adopt it I'd say delete it as unused. CharonX/talk 01:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Personal-interest userbox with nobody to adopt it. The creator apparently only used it for about 5 minutes in May 2006 [1] before abandoning it. —dgies^t_c 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-AustGov-Education (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Template:PD-AustraliaGov, gives no citations while that the other does, I do not recommend redirection because then we only have more possible image copyright tags to keep track of, it is only linked to one image (Image:West leeming primary school logo.JPG) which I will change to {{logo}}, since that is what it is. Iamunknown 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Redundant and misleading as it incorrectly implies that any image by a government employee is PD, which it quite frankly is not. —Moondyne 05:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, misleading, and ironically contains Image:Australian_government_logo_template.JPG, which has been (incorrectly) tagged fair use. – Riana ^ऋ 05:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Coredesat 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikiproject Drake & Josh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Part of a WikiProject that has since been deleted -- kenb215 talk 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator -- kenb215 talk 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as CSD 6 - Housekeeping. Wooyi 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per T1 (and borderline G1). However, user not blocked. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sucks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is POV, redundant to at least one other general cleanup template, and is almost certainly an april fools joke. I recommend deleting the template, and blocking the template's creator for at least a month, to teach him a lesson. — Xyzzyplugh 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per above. Suspect this process was initiated only to prevent a genuine speedy delete. Not that I'm complaining or anything. Addhoc 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - it is the first template I have seen in some time that actually meets T1. Gracenotes^T § 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, I second the block of the template's creator. What a heartless man... let's make this as punitive as possible. Gracenotes^T § 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fully concur - block should always be punitive after all. Addhoc 17:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - I recommend that the humor tag be kept and the template be categorised in BJAODN. It is slightly funny... possibly even side splitting in my opinion, but then again, I have a Star Trek sense of humor (warped). And don't forget we still have WP:BALLS on here, and to call someone's article "Complete Bollocks" is a bit unnecessary, but it got kept and tagged as humourous and not to be taken seriously. Thor Malmjursson 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (Member of the Dept. of Fun)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep per Thatcher131. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Confirmed-nc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Used in very few CheckUser cases, and unnecessary as the clerks remove IPs from checkuser requests anyway. — mrholybrain's talk 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Nominator should probably have discussed this with the checkusers first. Clerks do not always remove IP addresses, sometimes it is necessary to show a pattern of behavior. IP addresses listed in requests may sometimes be confirmed when the editor's own behavior makes it obvious; however IP addresses are generally not commented on and this template is needed to make people aware of that. The fact that checkusers do not use it as often as they could probably means the checkusers should be reminded to use it, not a reason for deletion. Thatcher131 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Thatcher131. Addhoc 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unicode Latin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template being too large. Only used in list of Latin letters. The content of this template has been copied to that article. Therefore I request this template to be deleted --✉Hello World! 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - too big and clumsy. Not currently used. Addhoc 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- this was a dump for material exiled from Template:Latin alphabet. The current organization at list of Latin letters is much better. It can be re-created from material there if the need to transclude such a list from several articles should arise. dab (𒁳) 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Seems a reasonable thing to do. Urhixidur 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete.' Too big and lacks a good structure. —Ruud 12:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment—kudos to the editors who went through the work of deprecating the template. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.